From: "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 12:22, Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote: > > Interesting, how did you guys solve the issue of TaskContainers needing to > > allow Tasks and Datatypes although the signature of the interface is > > addTask(Task) ? > > This wasn't done in the runtime as such but was part of the implementation of > the ant1 compatability layer. Essentially whenever an ant1 task was defined > it created an instance of the Ant1AdapterTask (or whatever it was called) > that did this bit of magic and other bits of magic. However the notion of > TaskContainers was not 100% supported (and still isn't) because the > stdout/sterr was not redirected to the correct task and so forth. >
So, if we were to adopt your definitions of roles in ANT1, can TaskContainers be supported with your definitions in the context of maintaining backward compatibility in ANT1. If you think it is possible, can you give us some hints on how would it go? > Most of the stuff that Ant1 TaskContainers were used for should be > reimplemented as ContainerTasks (Container tasks contain arbitrary objects > and allow arbitrary reconfiguratyion and building while TaskContainers just > contain tasks). That is fine for ANT2, but in ANT1 there may be people having their own TaskContainers and they need to work as expected. Jose Alberto -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
